Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Theories Of Motivation

Taylor''s motivational theory In 1911 the engineer Frederick Taylor published one of the earliest motivational theories. According to Taylor''s research, people worked purely for money. In the early years of the car assembly industry, work on a production line was based on producing quantity and was repetitive. Workers were paid ''piece rate'', that is, paid for every item produced. This approach of paying workers by results was good for the business. The outcome was greater production but gave little opportunity, encouragement or time for employees to think for themselves or be creative in what they did.

This limited people''s development and their use within the company. * social man - people are motivated by their relationships with others and without this they do not exist. The need to belong to social groups and teams is critical. Four general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies: The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of Job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors. Informal organization affects productivity.

The Hawthorne researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives. Work-group norms affect productivity. The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is "a fair day''s work," however, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon. The workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts. omplex man - people are variable in what motivates them. Their self motivation changes from time to time, and through time, and from situation to situation Need Home Job self-actualization education, religion, hobbies, personal growth training, advancement, growth, creativity esteem approval of family, friends, community recognition, high status, responsibilities belongingness family, friends, clubs teams, depts, coworkers, clients, supervisors, subordinates safety freedom from war, poison, violence work safety, Job security, health insurance physiological food water sex According to Maslow, lower needs take priority.

They must be fulfilled before the others are activated. There is some basic common sense here it''s pointless to worry about whether a given color looks good on you when you are dying of starvation, or being threatened with your life. There are some basic things that take precedence over all else. Or at least logically should, if people were rational. But is that a safe assumption? According to the theory, if you are hungry and have inadequate shelter, you won''t go to church.

Cant do the higher things until you have the lower things. But the poor tend to be more religious than the rich. Both within a given culture, and across nations. So the theory makes the wrong prediction here. Or take education: how often do you hear "l can''t go to class today, I havent had sex in three days! "? Do all physiological needs including sex have to be satisfied before "higher" needs? (Besides, wouldn''t the authors of the Kama Sutra argue that sex was a kind of self- expression more like art than a physiological need? hat would put it in the self- actualization box). Again, the theory doesn''t seem to predict correctly. Cultural critique: Does Maslow''s classification really reflect the order in which needs are satisfied, or is it more about classifying needs from a kind of "tastefulness" erspective, with lofty goals like personal growth and creativity at the top, and "base" instincts like sex and hunger at the bottom? And is self-actualization actually a fundamental need? Or Just something that can be done if you have the leisure time?

Two Factor theory (Herzberg) According to Herzberg, two kinds of factors affect motivation, and they do it in different ways: hygiene factors. These are factors whose absence motivates, but whose presence has no perceived effect. They are things that when you take them away, people become dissatisfied and act to get them back. A very good example is heroin to a heroin addict. Long term addicts do not shoot up to get high; they shoot up to stop being sick to get normal.

Other examples include decent working conditions, security, pay, benefits (like health insurance), company policies, interpersonal relationships. In general, these are extrinsic items low in the Maslow/ Alderfer hierarchy. motivators. These are factors whose presence motivates. Their absence does not cause any particular dissatisfaction, it Just fails to motivate. Examples are all the things at the top of the Maslow hierarchy, and the intrinsic motivators. So hygiene factors determine dissatisfaction, and motivators determine atisfaction.

The two scales are independent, and you can be high on both. If you think back to the class discussion on power, we talked about a baseline point on the well-being scale. Power involved a threat to reduce your well-being, causing dissatisfaction. Hence, power basically works by threatening to withhold hygiene factors. Influence was said to fundamentally be about promising improvements in well-being when you are influenced to do something, it is because you want to, not because you were threatened. Influence basically works by offering to provide motivators (in Herzberg''s terms).

No comments:

Post a Comment